Video: LA Sheriffs kill 80-year-old man in bed in meth raid gone bad

posted at 2:01 pm on February 16, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

How did an 80-year-old man end up shot to death in his own bed by Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs? Reason’s Zach Weissmuller takes an in-depth look at the death of Eugene Mallory, who died in a hail of bullets triggered by supposedly challenging the deputies with a gun in the hallway of his own home during a meth raid. Only Mallory didn’t get shot in the hallway — he got shot in his bedroom, and the bullets came before the deputy warned him to put his gun down. Did Mallory pick up the gun at all? And what were deputies doing by raiding the house in the first place? Mallory’s widow wants answers:

Deputies approached the house, and what happened next is where things get murky. The deputies said they announced their presence upon entering and were met in the hallway by the 80-year-old man, wielding a gun and stumbling towards them. The deputies later changed the story when the massive bloodstains on Mallory’s mattress indicated to investigators that he’d most likely been in bed at the time of the shooting. Investigators also found that an audio recording of the incident revealed a discrepancy in the deputies’ original narrative:

Before listening to the audio recording, [Sgt. John] Bones believed that he told Mallory to “Drop the gun” prior to the shooting. The recording revealed, however, that his commands to “Drop the gun” occurred immediately after the shooting.

When it was all over, Eugene Mallory died of six gunshot wounds from Sgt. John Bones’ MP-5 9mm submachine gun. When a coroner arrived, he found the loaded .22 caliber pistol the two deputies claimed Mallory had pointed at them on the bedside table.

Mallory had not fired a single shot. The raid turned up no evidence of methamphetamine on the property.

The raid was conducted on the strength of a confidential informant and an investigator who claimed to have detected a “strong chemical odor” while downwind of the house. That apparently justified a military-style raid on the property, even though Mallory had no criminal history, let alone any indication of violence. Why not have Pate let them in and get Mallory out of bed to conduct their search?

This sort of thing is becoming common place. The police will use that time old adage that they were in fear for their live’s or some other B.S. All these SWAT type tactics are a waste. A little bit of detective work and common sense would go a long way in the majority of these cases. It has become an us versus them mentality with some police departments. Police work is difficult and dangerous but innocent people shouldn’t be getting killed because of that.

Police also have no right to DEMAND a man put his gun down IN HIS OWN HOME that they have invaded! They have no rights WHATSOEVER until they PROVE they belong there.

ConstantineXI on February 16, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Actually, they have every right to make that demand. Police don’t have to place themselves in danger by allowing someone to shoot them before they respond.

What’s more concerning is both:

The recording revealed, however, that his commands to “Drop the gun” occurred immediately after the shooting.

as well as

The raid turned up no evidence of methamphetamine on the property.

If the guy had refused to drop the gun, that would have been cause to drop him. Had they found the guy had meth, that would have at least given them some credibility. But what’s been described here really can’t be explained as anything other than, at best, panic-induced killing which should result in immediate suspension from the force and criminal charges… and at worst, its cold-blooded murder.

That apparently justified a military-style raid on the property, even though Mallory had no criminal history, let alone any indication of violence. Why not have Pate let them in and get Mallory out of bed to conduct their search?

Just about every Cops episode has some guy in uniform saying something to the effect of, “I’m want to make sure I live to go home and see my kids at the end of my shift.” And they mean it, too. No matter who else gets shot.

The raid was conducted on the strength of a confidential informant and an investigator who claimed to have detected a “strong chemical odor” while downwind of the house.

What a raft of sh!t. The judge who signed the search warrant ought to be arrested and jailed. He should get the same treatment he approves for others and not even have a trial. Straight to jail to sit there and rot with the rest of the people connected with this illegal raid. All of them.

The changes should begin with the execution of any policeman that kills another civilian and lies about any aspect of it. Only by bringing them to the wall will they get the message. The others that go are the watch commander, the prosecutors and judges that permit these things and do nothing about it.

SWAT cops, and too many police, in general, are simply gangs and should be treated as such.

I want to know why it takes all the way when it happened in June 2013 to now to know about this raid. The media took the report from the police as true and nothing else. No one gets fired from a lawsuit as they might as well just cut a billion dollar check to the family if the police show they did wrong after a lawsuit is filled. The police lawyers have to defend the indefensible in a lawsuit to save taxpayer money so no one is fired or punished. Getting one charged is also time sensitives and after 8 months the internal investigation into the shooting was solved and found no wrong doing. No new external investigation will change that.

The judge who signed the search warrant ought to be arrested and jailed. He should get the same treatment he approves for others and not even have a trial. Straight to jail to sit there and rot with the rest of the people connected with this illegal raid. All of them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 16, 2014 at 2:12 PM

A bit over the top don’t you think? Even John Adams argued with lynch mobs ready to drag redcoats from detention without trial.

How did an 80-year-old man end up shot to death in his own bed by Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs? Reason’s Zach Weissmuller takes an in-depth look at the death of Eugene Mallory, who died in a hail of bullets…
One Dead, Six Injured In Dallas Nightclub Shooting
NBC Dallas-Fort Worth · 16 minutes ago
MTech student shot dead in Delhi
Times of India · 3 hours ago
See also: More stories · Top stories

A bit over the top don’t you think? Even John Adams argued with lynch mobs ready to drag redcoats from detention without trial.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 16, 2014 at 2:20 PM

The judge who signed that warrant deserves the same treatment he forced on others. There’s more immediate evidence against the judge (with his own signature to prove it) than there was to search that house. There’s no question about the judge’s guilt. None at all.

You will never deter this kind of behavior without jail time for those responsible.

Also, there is no excuse for an armed intrusion into a person’s home, period, ever, absent an imminent threat to society, either because of a terrorist threat, or someone suspected of murder, rape, or other serious violent felony.

These incidents with militarized police are happening all across the country. It’s remarkable how those who swear to uphold, defend, protect, and serve are the ones who constantly violate the rule of law. Trickle-down is a real phenomena, not just in economics…

The 22-page complaint was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by Tonya Pate, 48, who claims the shooting of her husband Eugene Mallory the morning of June 27 was unlawful. According to the complaint, a deputy obtained false information from a secret informant who had a “personal vendetta” against Mallory and Pete.
…

Pate’s attorney says no meth-related chemicals were ever found in the home, but the Sheriff’s Department alleged a marijuana-growing operation was on the property, according to reports.

Deputies deny Mallory was in bed when he was shot.

“The truth of the matter is a gentleman pointed a semi-automatic weapon at our deputies,” LASD spokesman Steve Whitmore said previously.
…

The coroner disposed of Mallory’s body without the consent of his widow, according to the suit, which asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

I wonder where he is. He’s usually first on the scene to troll gun threads. His mom must be cleaning his basement.

jawkneemusic on February 16, 2014 at 2:26 PM

I cannot believe the tone here. Really? You want to throw in some hurtful crap like that just because he’s the worst commenter here? You want to take a snide shot at his dedication to his family duties and home responsibilities over some stupid and completely ignorant comments he’s posted in reference to guns and gun laws. I suppose you’re still laughing about skeet guns not being able to hurt you.

I swear.

I’ll tell you this. I know for a fact he cleans his basement every week without his Mom even asking. It’s the trash he gets a bit peeved at because she asks him while he’s commenting.

An MP-5? If you are not familiar with the HK MP-5, I suggest you Google it. There are two versions, a long and short. These are military room-clearing weapons. I’ve fired one of these and I can tell you the only purpose they have is for urban assault in buildings where armed resistance is expected.

So other than this “confidential informant” and a “chemical ordor”, what kind of intel were these officers operating on? If that is the extent of it, I would have no problem convicting the deputy(ies) and the sheriff that ordered the raid of murder … no problem at all.

And another thing, if you see someone, police or not, approaching your house with an MP-5, start shooting because their intent is to kill you.

Gawd, I read that and the first thing that came to mind is Thomas Pickering talking about Benghazi showing the system needs a fix here and there. You sound exactly like an establishment bureaucrat blaming it on the system.

It also demands someone going to jail for, at least, either negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. It also demands some people being fired because they are not up to running a Sheriff’s Office in a professional manner.

And, lastly, this case demands some entities, both organizational and personal, paying big bucks in compensation.

Wrong. Outside my home, police have the same right to life as I do – no more, no less. In my home, my right to life and my safety supersede theirs.

If taking in a suspect is not urgent enough for the police to jeopardize their own lives and safety, then they sure as hell have no right to jeopardize mine.

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Wrong. Your right to safety does not supersede theirs. An occupant is expected to identify an intruder, and if it is law enforcement, not engage. Other intruders though are fair game (with the exception of certain mandatory retreat states, whose politicians as far as I’m concerned ought to be dragged out back and shot).

Sheez. If the cops or going to be bad, be really bad. At least take a shot from the old guy’s bedside .22 into the wall or floor or roof so it looks like he was shooting at you. And plant some meth so your pristine informant doesn’t get any scrutiny. Finally, be sure to destroy all recordings of the incident so it’s just your word. /s

Let’s demand that SWAT be used every time a parking ticket is written. /s

Courant demands on gun enforcement present dilemma for state
Decrying estimates that “scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31,” The Hartford Courant published an editorial Friday declaring “State Can’t Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook.

Aware that “willful noncompliance … is doubtless a major issue,” The Courant floated the wishful thinking “that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

“But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law,” The Courant concluded, calling on the state to use the “background check database” to identify who has not obeyed, and to go and get them.

Was an investigation conducted before the raid? Did they surveil the house to determine who was there or who visited? Did they check ownership/rental records? utility bills? Looked for cars or guns registered to that address? Maybe follow anyone leaving the house and pull their vehicle over for a “traffic violation” to conduct a surreptitious field interview? There are many things that can be done before simply breaking in an shooting someone. But those things take time and effort and are the mundane part of the job. There should be a strict protocol of prior efforts to determine who/what is in the house before an assault is conducted.

“But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law,” The Courant concluded, calling on the state to use the “background check database” to identify who has not obeyed, and to go and get them. DinaRehn on February 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM

The CT State Police are p00ping their pants about having to enforce this law now that so many armed citizens have called the tyrants’ bluff. We’ll see whether they want to confront them in bloody skirmishes or hope it will all go away.

Your editorial board now wishes to respond to “gun violence” by . . . proposing more gun violence, only this time visited upon heretofore law-abiding citizens who wish only to be left alone with their liberty, property and lives intact under the Constitution and the rule of law. Instead, having prostituted that rule of law, the Courant proposes that someone “pay the price” for defying their benighted prohibition. “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.”

Having delivered a speech on the steps of your state capitol last April on this very subject, I couldn’t agree more. But the law I refer to is the ironclad, unappealable and unrepealable Law of Unintended Consequences. The Courant and the prohibitionist politicos who passed this law have written a check with their mouths that someone else’s son or daughter, presumably the Connecticut State Police, will have to cash in blood — their own or the designated victims of the Courant, but probably both. My Modest Proposal is that the Courant editorial board have the courage of their.convictions and lead the first raid parties.

No doubt that experience will lead to a change in an editorial policy, one way or the other.

You sound exactly like an establishment bureaucrat blaming it on the system.

It also demands someone going to jail for, at least, either negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. It also demands some people being fired because they are not up to running a Sheriff’s Office in a professional manner.

And, lastly, this case demands some entities, both organizational and personal, paying big bucks in compensation.

None of you guys seem to get it. We are in a Drug War. This is how war is conducted.

Perhaps the shooter didn’t realize the Enemy didn’t actually have the gun in his hand yet. So? If the Enemy was not raising his hands in surrender, then just the gun being there was reason enough to shoot the Enemy combatant in a war.

You say it turns out the guy wasn’t one of the Enemy? Oh, well. Friendly fire accidents happen all the time in war.

The only real question is if we should be engaged in a war on drugs, and no one in the media seems to be asking that question.

My position on the Drug War? If we aren’t willing to shoot the people supplying the money (the users) to the Enemy, then we are crazy to go to war against the suppliers.

An “occupant”?? That’s how you view private property – that we are just “occupants” of our land and homes? No wonder you think the cops have more rights to anyone’s property than the owner.

Nice.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM

An occupant is someone who is occupying the property. It could be owned by a landlord. It could be owned by a homeowner. It could be that one of the people inside is simply an invited guest. A person’s status doesn’t magically hang over their heads indicating what they are.

And yes, cops do have the right to establish control of a situation, including telling you not to reach for a weapon that s your property, not to flee from your property, etc. Based on the recording, that clearly was not done here and they instead went in guns blazing which they don’t have the right to do.

And as for uniforms, I remember when cops wore uniforms rather than dressing like Marines going house to house in Fallujah.

Akzed on February 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM

If someone’s on the other side of a door inside the home, the police should self-identify (hence yes, shouting “Police!” is a good idea). If you can’t see them and they don’t identify as police, then you can only operate on the potential threat and act accordingly until there’s evidence to the contrary.

The only way to stop the continual murder of law abiding citizen by law enforcement is to strip the protection away from them – the protection that prevents individuals being sued.

Currently, it is my understanding, that only their employer can be sued (named)- this way the municipalities have their insurance company pay whatever settlement is reached and no one other than taxpayers via their property taxes is ever aware of what happened.

The minute their protection is removed – so are the unnecessary deaths due to incredible stupidity, laziness, and sense of invulnerability.

And yes, cops do have the right to establish control of a situation, including telling you not to reach for a weapon that s your property, not to flee from your property, etc.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 3:03 PM

No they do not. The world does not belong to the cops, nor is the world, at large, entrusted to the cops. Control of an already existing dangerous situation is entrusted to the cops, e.g., they have a right to invade the home of an at large serial killer or suspected terrorist.

They do not have the right to create a situation that is dangerous, as they do with armed raids in pursuit of people who do not pose an already existing, credible, and imminent threat to the safety of others.

I believe the previous history of “no-knock” raids was the Gestapo’s use of nacht und nebel, or night and fog, where the honoree simply disappeared into the fog in the middle of the night. That apparently is next.

The sheriff is the only directly elected government executive in The United States of America. He is answerable directly to the people of his county. This isn’t obama (though it could be), this is the guy you elected. The people of his county need to remove him from office by any means within the law. Do not this incompetent political hack blame this on overzealous deputies.

If someone’s on the other side of a door inside the home, the police should self-identify (hence yes, shouting “Police!” is a good idea).

Whatever happened to knocking on the front door?

If you can’t see them and they don’t identify as police, then you can only operate on the potential threat and act accordingly until there’s evidence to the contrary. Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM

If criminal home invaders yell “Police!” from behind a door, the homeowner might not arm himself and be victimized because he thought the police were yelling “Police” and not a crack head trying to rob him.

That’s what I was getting at, which you didn’t address.

The problem is that the policed are increasingly acting like criminals, and homeowners are defending themselves accordingly. Except of course in this case, where the cops shot a harmless elderly man in his bed then apparently lied about it.

There are whole web sites dedicated to police misbehavior, not for no reason.

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.

When combined with the 50-year failure known as the War on Drugs, and police forces in America increasingly militarized and out of control, stories like this are all too common. I am sure we will get another “300 pound policeman shoots 15-pound beagle 9 times when it barked at him, police chief supports his actions” story this week

No they do not. The world does not belong to the cops, nor is the world, at large, entrusted to the cops. Control of an already existing dangerous situation is entrusted to the cops, e.g., they have a right to invade the home of an at large serial killer or suspected terrorist.

They do not have the right to create a situation that is dangerous, as they do with armed raids in pursuit of people who do not pose an already existing, credible, and imminent threat to the safety of others.

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Actually, it is entrusted to the cops. That is why they “protect and serve” and provide us with law and order. They are the literal embodiment of law enforcement. And yes, they have the right to create dangerous situations in so far as it is done in the pursuit of upholding the law. They do that every time they confront a suspect, because there’s always the possibility he could take a hostage, or have a gun and kill an innocent bystander while resisting arrest.

If criminal home invaders yell “Police!” from behind a door, the homeowner might not arm himself and be victimized because he thought the police were yelling “Police” and not a crack head trying to rob him.

That’s what I was getting at, which you didn’t address.

Akzed on February 16, 2014 at 3:34 PM

And that’s a problem that you are always going to have: people lie. After all, when someone pulls you over to give you a speeding ticket, how do you know it’s a real cop and not some random guy with a car and some flashers? You don’t, but you have to go off of the best information you have.